Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

My marshmallow Americans, I have harglebargle [POLITICS]

15759616263

Posts

  • Run Run RunRun Run Run __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    Karl wrote: »

    No one is saying that is wrong.

    Well i hope not, because if they are thats pretty stupid in my view.

    However as the manager of said labour workforce, you are obligated not to fuck them over.

    Of course not. I am not a libertarian. I believe in social capitalism. Free market with strong ethical limitations.

    kissing.jpg
  • The Far SideThe Far Side __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    MKR wrote: »
    In an ideal world, you would strangle those above you with your bootstraps to rise in power.

    i like how 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps' has become an unironic phrase of the right, when it initially described something physically impossible

    33aqfwk.jpg
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    How is making money off other people's backs a bad thing? I mean it's the what every working economic system ever is build upon.

    I mean, I got a bunch of resources, but alone I am not capable of doing all the labor with it, so I pay a lot of people to do the labor for me.

    I of course pay them less for the labor than I do earn with said labor so that I increase my resources and have my company grow.

    this begs so many questions

    precedent does not equal ethical soundness

    where did you get the resources

    why should they get paid less when they are doing the work that helps the company grow

    why should you get paid more when you are not doing the same amount of work

    Scarcity of resources and best allocation of skill. They get paid less because there are more people able to do that job. You get paid more because there are less people that can do what you can. Maybe the resource you bring to the table is Capital, and that has it's own value in the economy.

    Spoiler:
  • Run Run RunRun Run Run __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    I'm opposed to private capital :)

    you mean individual capital / human capital? or private ownership?

    kissing.jpg
  • The Far SideThe Far Side __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    why should you get paid more when you are not doing the same amount of work
    Welcome to the Labour Theory of Value~~~~

    33aqfwk.jpg
  • AbracadanielAbracadaniel Certified BrimperRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    Whoa wait, you're brown?

    Crap.

    i believe i'm what's known as a beaner

    I would never have noticed!

    sites: personal | tumblr | abracadaniel dot com | coolguy.me
    services I recommend: tonx coffee *highly recommended* | everlane
    Secret Satan Wishlists: Regular List Coffee Stuff
    FUNTENDO DS BROCODE: 2337-4364-1683
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    In an ideal world, you would strangle those above you with your bootstraps to rise in power.

    but i get paid so little that i cannot afford bootstraps!

    i line my soles with newspapers i find on the street to make them last longer

    Shank a dude with a sharpened stick and steal his.

  • QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    How is making money off other people's backs a bad thing? I mean it's the what every working economic system ever is build upon.

    I mean, I got a bunch of resources, but alone I am not capable of doing all the labor with it, so I pay a lot of people to do the labor for me.

    I of course pay them less for the labor than I do earn with said labor so that I increase my resources and have my company grow.

    this begs so many questions

    precedent does not equal ethical soundness

    where did you get the resources

    why should they get paid less when they are doing the work that helps the company grow

    why should you get paid more when you are not doing the same amount of work

    Scarcity of resources and best allocation of skill. They get paid less because there are more people able to do that job. You get paid more because there are less people that can do what you can. Maybe the resource you bring to the table is Capital, and that has it's own value in the economy.

    but again, how did you acquire the capital... is it reasonable that someone who essentially managed to stick a flag in the ground first should get to keep said ground

    if i go to the grocery store and lick a cookie does it become mine

    “Hic non defectus est, sed cattus minxit desuper nocte quadam. Confundatur pessimus cattus qui minxit super librum istum in nocte Daventrie, et consimiliter omnes alii propter illum. Et cavendum valde ne permittantur libri aperti per noctem ubi cattie venire possunt.”
    Site | The Miami Grindstone | Twitter | Dropbox | Picture by Galen Dara
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited October 2009

    I'll have to save this post, right now I am studying Enviromental Econ and what the right amount of pollution is.

    The answer is not none.

    Also, Market Failures explain so much of this world, so sexy.

    Spoiler:
  • QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    MKR wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    In an ideal world, you would strangle those above you with your bootstraps to rise in power.

    but i get paid so little that i cannot afford bootstraps!

    i line my soles with newspapers i find on the street to make them last longer

    Shank a dude with a sharpened stick and steal his.

    but how will i sharpen it

    with my teeth

    that is so unhygenic

    “Hic non defectus est, sed cattus minxit desuper nocte quadam. Confundatur pessimus cattus qui minxit super librum istum in nocte Daventrie, et consimiliter omnes alii propter illum. Et cavendum valde ne permittantur libri aperti per noctem ubi cattie venire possunt.”
    Site | The Miami Grindstone | Twitter | Dropbox | Picture by Galen Dara
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    How is making money off other people's backs a bad thing? I mean it's the what every working economic system ever is build upon.

    I mean, I got a bunch of resources, but alone I am not capable of doing all the labor with it, so I pay a lot of people to do the labor for me.

    I of course pay them less for the labor than I do earn with said labor so that I increase my resources and have my company grow.

    this begs so many questions

    precedent does not equal ethical soundness

    where did you get the resources

    why should they get paid less when they are doing the work that helps the company grow

    why should you get paid more when you are not doing the same amount of work

    Scarcity of resources and best allocation of skill. They get paid less because there are more people able to do that job. You get paid more because there are less people that can do what you can. Maybe the resource you bring to the table is Capital, and that has it's own value in the economy.

    but again, how did you acquire the capital... is it reasonable that someone who essentially managed to stick a flag in the ground first should get to keep said ground

    if i go to the grocery store and lick a cookie does it become mine

    Ownership comes from the ability to protect an asset.

    Spoiler:
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    In an ideal world, you would strangle those above you with your bootstraps to rise in power.

    but i get paid so little that i cannot afford bootstraps!

    i line my soles with newspapers i find on the street to make them last longer

    Shank a dude with a sharpened stick and steal his.

    but how will i sharpen it

    with my teeth

    that is so unhygenic

    My ideal world will still have public parks, and those will have concrete pathways. To ensure fairness to all, of course. And there will be public shankers who can be enlisted to shank a dude if you're too weak, but you're obligated to compensate them later.

  • QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    How is making money off other people's backs a bad thing? I mean it's the what every working economic system ever is build upon.

    I mean, I got a bunch of resources, but alone I am not capable of doing all the labor with it, so I pay a lot of people to do the labor for me.

    I of course pay them less for the labor than I do earn with said labor so that I increase my resources and have my company grow.

    this begs so many questions

    precedent does not equal ethical soundness

    where did you get the resources

    why should they get paid less when they are doing the work that helps the company grow

    why should you get paid more when you are not doing the same amount of work

    Scarcity of resources and best allocation of skill. They get paid less because there are more people able to do that job. You get paid more because there are less people that can do what you can. Maybe the resource you bring to the table is Capital, and that has it's own value in the economy.

    but again, how did you acquire the capital... is it reasonable that someone who essentially managed to stick a flag in the ground first should get to keep said ground

    if i go to the grocery store and lick a cookie does it become mine

    Ownership comes from the ability to protect an asset.

    so if i lick the cookie and run away with it and the cops don't catch me then it's mine

    “Hic non defectus est, sed cattus minxit desuper nocte quadam. Confundatur pessimus cattus qui minxit super librum istum in nocte Daventrie, et consimiliter omnes alii propter illum. Et cavendum valde ne permittantur libri aperti per noctem ubi cattie venire possunt.”
    Site | The Miami Grindstone | Twitter | Dropbox | Picture by Galen Dara
  • Run Run RunRun Run Run __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    How is making money off other people's backs a bad thing? I mean it's the what every working economic system ever is build upon.

    I mean, I got a bunch of resources, but alone I am not capable of doing all the labor with it, so I pay a lot of people to do the labor for me.

    I of course pay them less for the labor than I do earn with said labor so that I increase my resources and have my company grow.

    this begs so many questions

    precedent does not equal ethical soundness

    where did you get the resources

    why should they get paid less when they are doing the work that helps the company grow

    why should you get paid more when you are not doing the same amount of work

    as I created the firm I decide who gets to work in it and who doesn't. I get to decide what I pay them for the labor. the workers are free to decide if they are willing to trade their labor for the I resources I offer them or not.

    Labor is just another recourse that is traded.

    kissing.jpg
  • QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    How is making money off other people's backs a bad thing? I mean it's the what every working economic system ever is build upon.

    I mean, I got a bunch of resources, but alone I am not capable of doing all the labor with it, so I pay a lot of people to do the labor for me.

    I of course pay them less for the labor than I do earn with said labor so that I increase my resources and have my company grow.

    this begs so many questions

    precedent does not equal ethical soundness

    where did you get the resources

    why should they get paid less when they are doing the work that helps the company grow

    why should you get paid more when you are not doing the same amount of work

    as I created the firm I decide who gets to work in it and who doesn't. I get to decide what I pay them for the labor. the workers are free to decide if they are willing to trade their labor for the I resources I offer them or not.

    Labor is just another recourse that is traded.

    you didn't answer any of the questions!

    “Hic non defectus est, sed cattus minxit desuper nocte quadam. Confundatur pessimus cattus qui minxit super librum istum in nocte Daventrie, et consimiliter omnes alii propter illum. Et cavendum valde ne permittantur libri aperti per noctem ubi cattie venire possunt.”
    Site | The Miami Grindstone | Twitter | Dropbox | Picture by Galen Dara
  • Run Run RunRun Run Run __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    kissing.jpg
  • KarlKarl Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I believe in social capitalism. Free market with strong ethical limitations.

    Well thats something i also agree with.

    Though i think there should be robust legal limitations to.

    And some industries are too important to be left to private corporations.

    Spoiler:
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    But what about the moon? Taxpayer dollars paid for the first landing there. And good luck getting anyone to recognize our dominion over the moon.

  • QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    “Hic non defectus est, sed cattus minxit desuper nocte quadam. Confundatur pessimus cattus qui minxit super librum istum in nocte Daventrie, et consimiliter omnes alii propter illum. Et cavendum valde ne permittantur libri aperti per noctem ubi cattie venire possunt.”
    Site | The Miami Grindstone | Twitter | Dropbox | Picture by Galen Dara
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    How is making money off other people's backs a bad thing? I mean it's the what every working economic system ever is build upon.

    I mean, I got a bunch of resources, but alone I am not capable of doing all the labor with it, so I pay a lot of people to do the labor for me.

    I of course pay them less for the labor than I do earn with said labor so that I increase my resources and have my company grow.

    this begs so many questions

    precedent does not equal ethical soundness

    where did you get the resources

    why should they get paid less when they are doing the work that helps the company grow

    why should you get paid more when you are not doing the same amount of work

    Scarcity of resources and best allocation of skill. They get paid less because there are more people able to do that job. You get paid more because there are less people that can do what you can. Maybe the resource you bring to the table is Capital, and that has it's own value in the economy.

    but again, how did you acquire the capital... is it reasonable that someone who essentially managed to stick a flag in the ground first should get to keep said ground

    if i go to the grocery store and lick a cookie does it become mine

    Ownership comes from the ability to protect an asset.

    so if i lick the cookie and run away with it and the cops don't catch me then it's mine

    Yes, at that point you can do whatever you want with it (making the assumption that police were the last line of protection)

    Spoiler:
  • QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    itt jigrah supports theft if you can get away with it

    you heard it here first folks

    “Hic non defectus est, sed cattus minxit desuper nocte quadam. Confundatur pessimus cattus qui minxit super librum istum in nocte Daventrie, et consimiliter omnes alii propter illum. Et cavendum valde ne permittantur libri aperti per noctem ubi cattie venire possunt.”
    Site | The Miami Grindstone | Twitter | Dropbox | Picture by Galen Dara
  • DubhDubh Sailor V Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Pony wrote: »
    there comes a point where if people can't tell if you are trolling or if you are really just an odious human being

    maybe

    you are an odious human being

    like if you honestly can't tell if a person is racist or is just saying racist things to outrage people and get attention

    it sorta becomes irrelevant

    even if they aren't actually racist

    they're still an asshole

    you're probably right, Pony

    Thing_zps6acf1883.png <---DE?AD makes games
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    You get proven wrong, usually with three hots and a cot.

    Spoiler:
  • ArtreusArtreus Hamlet Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    Then the government will use guns to take it away from you. That is kind of how it works.

    Although in today's world it is getting harder to get away with taking land away from other people with guns.

    http://atlanticus.tumblr.com/ PSN: Atlanticus 3DS: 1590-4692-3954 Steam: Artreus
  • Run Run RunRun Run Run __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    you didn't answer any of the questions!

    oh, but I did. labor is a recourse that got a price, just like any else. so they get paid less because that is what we agreed upon.

    I get paid more because I own the resources thanks to my power to claim them and so get to decide who gets to offer me the labor and who doesn't. if a person refuses to work for the payment I offer I will find someone else who does.

    I got the resources from the previous owner. who got them from the one before him. a chain thta goes back till the first person who first claimed those resources.

    kissing.jpg
  • ArtreusArtreus Hamlet Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    So how about that Friedrich List?

    http://atlanticus.tumblr.com/ PSN: Atlanticus 3DS: 1590-4692-3954 Steam: Artreus
  • QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    You get proven wrong, usually with three hots and a cot.

    right or wrong they have the might, so right or wrong they're always right

    “Hic non defectus est, sed cattus minxit desuper nocte quadam. Confundatur pessimus cattus qui minxit super librum istum in nocte Daventrie, et consimiliter omnes alii propter illum. Et cavendum valde ne permittantur libri aperti per noctem ubi cattie venire possunt.”
    Site | The Miami Grindstone | Twitter | Dropbox | Picture by Galen Dara
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    itt jigrah supports theft if you can get away with it

    you heard it here first folks

    I said ownership is the ability to protect something. How the fuck do you run with that and say I support theft?

    Spoiler:
  • DubhDubh Sailor V Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Artreus wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    Then the government will use guns to take it away from you. That is kind of how it works.

    Although in today's world it is getting harder to get away with taking land away from other people with guns.

    this actually cheered me up a bit, thinking about it

    Thing_zps6acf1883.png <---DE?AD makes games
  • lostwordslostwords Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    But are babbies considered assets to protect?

    rat.jpg tumbler? steam/ps3 thingie: lostwords Amazon Wishlist!
  • QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    itt jigrah supports theft if you can get away with it

    you heard it here first folks

    I said ownership is the ability to protect something. How the fuck do you run with that and say I support theft?

    i said i went to a grocery store and licked a cookie and ran away with it and you said therefore it was mine

    i stole a cookie but because i didn't get caught it's ok to you

    you said
    Yes, at that point you can do whatever you want with it (making the assumption that police were the last line of protection)

    “Hic non defectus est, sed cattus minxit desuper nocte quadam. Confundatur pessimus cattus qui minxit super librum istum in nocte Daventrie, et consimiliter omnes alii propter illum. Et cavendum valde ne permittantur libri aperti per noctem ubi cattie venire possunt.”
    Site | The Miami Grindstone | Twitter | Dropbox | Picture by Galen Dara
  • UsagiUsagi Feminazgul ~*special snowflake*~Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    well, you can take it to the Surpreme Court but the track record of overturning eminent domain is a bit dodgy (see Kelo v. New London)

    Jormungandr? Damn near killed 'er!
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    You get proven wrong, usually with three hots and a cot.

    right or wrong they have the might, so right or wrong they're always right

    You get proven wrong that the government has that authority, it does.

    In some countries might is only available through acts of Violence, in the United States there are other resources.

    Spoiler:
  • QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Usagi wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    well, you can take it to the Surpreme Court but the track record of overturning eminent domain is a bit dodgy (see Kelo v. New London)

    of course the government has a vested interest in perpetuating that kind of malfeasance

    doesn't make it ethically right or a proper basis for government



    ok seriously i am getting tired of being teefs, i'm done, don't touch my shit or you'll get a mouthful of hot lead

    “Hic non defectus est, sed cattus minxit desuper nocte quadam. Confundatur pessimus cattus qui minxit super librum istum in nocte Daventrie, et consimiliter omnes alii propter illum. Et cavendum valde ne permittantur libri aperti per noctem ubi cattie venire possunt.”
    Site | The Miami Grindstone | Twitter | Dropbox | Picture by Galen Dara
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    itt jigrah supports theft if you can get away with it

    you heard it here first folks

    I said ownership is the ability to protect something. How the fuck do you run with that and say I support theft?

    i said i went to a grocery store and licked a cookie and ran away with it and you said therefore it was mine

    i stole a cookie but because i didn't get caught it's ok to you

    you said
    Yes, at that point you can do whatever you want with it (making the assumption that police were the last line of protection)

    I didn't say that it was okay with me I said that at the point you had ownership because now you could protect the asset.

    Spoiler:
  • DubhDubh Sailor V Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    You get proven wrong, usually with three hots and a cot.

    right or wrong they have the might, so right or wrong they're always right

    You get proven wrong that the government has that authority, it does.

    In some countries might is only available through acts of Violence, in the United States there are other resources.

    But Jigrah, government authority runs from the fact that the state has the guns

    violaters are punished, etc. etc.

    Thing_zps6acf1883.png <---DE?AD makes games
  • QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    itt jigrah supports theft if you can get away with it

    you heard it here first folks

    I said ownership is the ability to protect something. How the fuck do you run with that and say I support theft?

    i said i went to a grocery store and licked a cookie and ran away with it and you said therefore it was mine

    i stole a cookie but because i didn't get caught it's ok to you

    you said
    Yes, at that point you can do whatever you want with it (making the assumption that police were the last line of protection)

    I didn't say that it was okay with me I said that at the point you had ownership because now you could protect the asset.

    so you don't think it's okay but you do think it creates ownership

    seriously

    “Hic non defectus est, sed cattus minxit desuper nocte quadam. Confundatur pessimus cattus qui minxit super librum istum in nocte Daventrie, et consimiliter omnes alii propter illum. Et cavendum valde ne permittantur libri aperti per noctem ubi cattie venire possunt.”
    Site | The Miami Grindstone | Twitter | Dropbox | Picture by Galen Dara
  • Run Run RunRun Run Run __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    well, those were barbaric times. nowadays you and me luckily live in civilized nations where the state protects our property rights.

    if you don't agree with the government ... well tough shit. I agree that every form of government is in a way a form of dictatorship, but a necessary one for a peaceful human society to function. at least on a large scale.

    The government protects my right to own the factory. But it also does, or at least should, protect me from being exploited, or at least unbearably exploited, by setting minimum wages and regulations for sound work conditions, and protecting me from discrimination, so that the factory owner only gets to refuse my offered labor due to my level of skill and not my skin color for example.

    kissing.jpg
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Dubh wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    You get proven wrong, usually with three hots and a cot.

    right or wrong they have the might, so right or wrong they're always right

    You get proven wrong that the government has that authority, it does.

    In some countries might is only available through acts of Violence, in the United States there are other resources.

    But Jigrah, government authority runs from the fact that the state has the guns

    violaters are punished, etc. etc.

    I agree that government authority comes from the fact that it has the guns. The same powers that give it the guns also empowers it's citizens in ways that do not require violence.

    Spoiler:
  • Run Run RunRun Run Run __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    I basically believe what mine is mine, but I only get to fuck over other people with it to a certain degree.

    kissing.jpg
This discussion has been closed.